North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 24, No. 3
July 2006
Noxious Weed Infestations
Decline in North Dakota
Children Act Fast, and So Do
Poisons
Coordinator's Comments
Case Files: A Monitor® pesticide
drift investigation
Worker Protection Standard:
Focus on eye flush requirements
The following news release from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture earlier in the spring was indeed good news. However, it failed to mention that a significant part of the credit for this should go to the research and outreach efforts of Rod Lym's project at NDSU, new chemistry by the industry and, of course, the 1,232 certified commercial rights of way applicators and the thousands of certified private applicators who have been schooled in the latest in pest management by the NDSU Extension Service. Kudos to you all!
Leafy spurge edged out Canada thistle as North Dakota's worst noxious weed in 2005, but the reported acreage for both weeds was down slightly from 2004, according to a new report from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA).
"The decrease in reported infestation indicates that local weed authorities are effectively using roadside spraying, cost-share and other programs to limit and reduce the spread of noxious weeds," said Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, who released "North Dakota's Noxious Weeds: 2005 Survey Results" on Thursday. "At the same time, the accuracy of the annual survey has been improved through the increased use of satellite technology."
According to the report, North Dakota had 993,644 acres infested with leafy spurge in 2005, compared with 1,140,713 acres in 2004. Canada thistle infestation dropped from 1,085,224 acres in 2004 to 956,335 last year. Absinth wormwood, with 452,594 acres reported, was North Dakota's third most extensive noxious weed in 2005. Overall, noxious weed-infested acreage fell from 3,375,479 reported acres in 2004 to 3,023,631 in 2005.
The survey showed that infestations in all but three of the state's 12 noxious weeds declined between 2004 and 2005.
Slope County reported the largest area infested with noxious weeds - 172,858 acres, most of it with field bindweed.
Johnson said almost all North Dakota counties are participating in an NDDA program that provides the counties with free global positioning system units in return for noxious weed maps and other information.
North Dakota's 12 noxious weeds are absinth wormwood, Canada thistle, Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, field bindweed, leafy spurge, must thistle, purple loosestrife, Russian thistle, saltcedar, spotted knapweed and yellow starthistle.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advises parents and caregivers to keep potentially harmful products, such as pesticides, locked up and in a high cabinet out of the reach of children.
U.S. poison control centers receive a call every 15 seconds about an accidental poisoning. The National Safety Council records show that more than 50 percent of the 2 million poisoning incidents each year involve children under 6 years of age. Most are due to children swallowing common household items such as prescription and over-the-counter medications, vitamins, cosmetics, and personal care and cleaning products. Poisonings also involve house plants, tobacco products and alcohol.
To reduce the number of unintentional poisoning deaths and injuries, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends parents keep items in their original containers, leave the original labels on the products and read labels before use. Bathrooms and kitchens are the areas in the home most likely to have improperly stored hazards. Always purchase products with child-resistant safety packaging, and keep all household products and medicines locked up, out of sight and out of reach of young children.
Poisonings can occur when adults are distracted for just a few moments by the telephone, the doorbell or other household events. That's why locking up potential hazards is so important.
This spring, EPA has distributed 23,000 posters featuring the phone number for the Poison Hotline, (800) 222-1222, to poison centers, schools, clinics, hospitals and health departments.
These simple steps can help you save children from environmental hazards around the home:
• Always store pesticides, household chemicals/cleaners, medications, vitamins and personal care items, including chlorine bleach, out of the children's reach - preferably in a locked cabinet.
• Read the label first. Pesticide products, household cleaning products and pet products can be dangerous.
• Before applying pesticides or other household chemicals, remove children and their toys, as well as pets, from the area. Keep children and pets away until the pesticide has dried or as long as is recommended on the label.
• If your use of pesticide or other household chemicals is interrupted (perhaps by a phone call), properly close the container and remove it from children's reach. Always use household products in child-resistant packaging.
• Never transfer pesticides to other containers that a children may associate with food or drink (such as soda bottles), and never place rodent or insect baits where small children can get to them.
• When applying insect repellents to children, read all directions first. Do not apply over cuts, wounds or irritated skin; do not apply to eyes, mouth, hands or directly on the face; and use just enough to cover exposed skin or clothing but do not use under clothing.
Parents and community organizations can obtain additional prevention materials, including the "Ten Tips to Protect Children from Pesticide and Lead Poisonings" and "Poison Prevention: Read the Label First Community Action Kit" brochures by calling EPA's Environmental Publications line at (800) 490-9198.
Additional information on pesticide poison prevention is available at:
• www.poisonprevention.org or go to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/childsaf.htm
It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon and my 9-year-old daughter, Erin, and I are driving down to the hardware store to buy supplies for our bathroom remodeling project. Along the way, I spot a 4- or 5-year-old boy killing ants on the sidewalk with Sevin Dust (carbaryl). He has the stuff all over his pants, and he has it on his hands and arms as well. At first, we just kept on driving. My thought was, I can't believe he is doing that, but hey, some adult probably knows what's going on and it's their kid.
About five blocks away, I could not take it any more. We did a U-turn and my daughter looked inquisitively at me as we drove back and pulled up to visit with the kid who still was merrily shaking copious quantities of Sevin on the hapless ants. I inquired if his mom or dad knew what he was doing. Puzzled and a bit scared of strangers, he ran back into the garage and a few moments later, a man I assumed was his father came out and waved and shouted, "Everything's OK."
So now what do I do? I think the kid is going to at least get a headache from this stuff or worse yet, he has enough skin exposure to get the stuff in his eyes and mouth. He could get really sick. Unfortunately, in disgust I just drove off muttering bad words under my breath so my daughter would not hear.
I have not been entirely satisfied with my reaction to this incident, so I thought I would share it with you and share the following news release from the Environmental Protection Agency. If you sell pesticides to the average homeowner, would you please make some of this information available to your clients?
All the best,
Andrew A. Thostenson
Pesticide Coordinator
This story is based on an actual 2001 Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) investigation. Although this occurred in another state, the methods used in the investigation and the means of determining an appropriate penalty are similar for North Dakota.
The woman on the phone was pretty upset, but calmed down enough to say she had been sprayed with pesticide and wanted to file a complaint.
"Who sprayed you? Do you know what they were spraying?" the department investigator asked.
"It was a guy on a tractor spraying the potato field across the road," the woman replied. "I'm not sure what they were spraying, but the odor was really strong and now I'm sick."
After getting a few more details from the caller, Mary Jones, department investigator Mark Simmons realized quickly that potential violations had occurred. Without delay, he headed for the incident site. Human exposure cases are the highest priority for department investigators and almost always elicit an immediate response.
Simmons arrived at Mrs. Jones' house almost four hours after the completed pesticide application. He observed and recorded that there was a steady wind ranging from 6 to 8 mph, with occasional gusts of more than 10 mph. The winds were roughly the same force and direction as when he had left the office more than three hours earlier. Later, he asked Mrs. Jones about the wind conditions when the man was spraying. He also checked data from the nearest Washington State University Public Agricultural Weather System (PAWS) station, and after receiving them, he checked the pesticide application records from the grower.
After introducing himself, he asked Mrs. Jones to tell him in detail what had happened and what she had observed. Mrs. Jones said she had walked from her house to the lawn that morning as she was preparing to go running. She smelled the odor of pesticides that seemed to be coming from the potato field about 150 feet south of her house. Mrs. Jones told Simmons, "I became nauseated from the odor and started to get a headache as I stood outside on my lawn. I could see a tractor pulling a spray tank and spraying the potato field across the road. I thought maybe I could get him to stop spraying, so I walked over to the potato field and around the edge, where I could talk to him."
Simmons immediately recognized that Mrs. Jones might have inadvertently placed herself at a higher risk of exposure to the pesticide by walking to the edge of the field. He noted she had not entered the field, but instead walked or stood near the edge on the public road right of way. (Later, he confirmed that Mrs. Jones had not set foot in the field.) Mrs. Jones told Simmons she waited at the field's edge for the tractor to reach the end of the row. She observed the spray operation for three to five minutes until the tractor stopped roughly 30 feet from where she was standing. Even with the spray boom down low and close to the potato foliage, she could see the spray mist rise up and blow with the wind across the potato field, across the road and onto her property more than 200 feet away. As the operator approached, she could see he wasn't wearing much protective equipment or clothing, just a jacket, jeans, leather boots and gloves. She yelled at him and he stopped the tractor.
"Are you Mr. Smith?" Mrs. Jones asked. "No, he's my boss," the tractor operator said. "He's not around right now. Is there something that I can help you with?" "Yeah - your spray is blowing all the way over to my house and making me sick!" Mrs. Jones said.
"What's your name? And where's Mr. Smith?" she asked. She got the answers she needed. Mrs. Jones, who now felt more ill, turned and walked along the roadside that ran parallel to the field. The tractor operator, Brad Doe, started spraying as she crossed the road and made her way home. Once there, her headache intensified and she began to vomit.
"How are you feeling now?" Simmons asked. "I haven't vomited for a couple of hours, but I still feel really sick," Mrs. Jones said.
"Did he tell you what he was spraying?" Simmons asked. "I think he said Monitor or something," Mrs. Jones said. "Monitor?" Simmons asked. "Yeah, that's what he said," Mrs. Jones said. "Are
you familiar with it?" Simmons replied, "It's an insecticide used on potatoes to control aphids, and it's fairly potent. I'm required by law to report human exposure incidents to the Washington State Department of Health. I'll call them now and they can tell you more about Monitor. They can give you information on any type of medical attention that you might need. Are you sure the operator wasn't wearing any coveralls or any kind of a face mask?" "Nope, he was only about 20 feet away from me when I talked to him," Mrs. Jones said. "I got a good look at him."
After calling the state Department of Health, Simmons finished questioning Mrs. Jones. He then went about the other tasks he needed to complete before contacting Jim Smith, the grower.
Simmons took samples, photographs and measurements and then drew a diagram of the incident site. Sampling was the first priority. He didn't want to walk around the site and potentially contaminate himself with any residues. If he contaminated himself by walking into an area with high residues, such as in or near the potato field, he might skew the analysis results by contaminating samples from areas with low residues.
Simmons pulled samples farthest from the potato field first. In this way, he could later determine whether there was a steady increase in sample residues as he worked his way closer to the potato field. This would help substantiate whether drift actually had occurred. Mrs. Jones gave him the first sample, an article of clothing she was wearing during the incident. He then took a series of soil, vegetation and other samples starting at Mrs. Jones' house and ending in the potato field. One of the first samples he obtained was where Mrs. Jones said she was standing when she first smelled pesticides and saw the tractor spraying. Simmons collected each sample wearing new rubber gloves. He then placed each sample in a new bag, clearly marked and then sealed. He placed all samples in a cooler with ice, and later transported them back to the office and placed them in a secured freezer.
Later, department staff transported the samples to Yakima, where they were analyzed for organophosphate residues. Throughout the investigation, the sample "chain of custody" was carefully maintained. Each person who took possession of the samples had to sign a form, and then keep the samples in a secure location until they could be analyzed for residues. If violations had occurred and the case prompted an administrative hearing, there would be no question about the legitimacy and accuracy of the chemical analyses.
After finishing at the incident site, Simmons drove to Mr. Smith's farm, where he introduced himself and told the farmer about the pesticide application complaint. Mr. Doe already had told his boss about the encounter with Mrs. Jones. Mr. Simmons' visit came as no great surprise to Mr. Smith. Simmons told Mr. Smith he would like to discuss the incident with Mr. Doe first and later with him, separately. Simmons had learned early in his career not to make snap judgments about whether the accused had actually done anything wrong. He was accustomed to hearing wide variations in testimony between those who filed a complaint and those who stood accused. It was not necessarily an exaggeration on the part of the complainant or a cover-up on the part of the accused. The variations simply were a matter of different perceptions and interpretations of the events. In the end, the facts would speak for themselves.
What he heard, now, from Mr. Doe, seemed pretty consistent with Mrs. Jones' description: "Yes, I sprayed the potato field with Monitor this morning. It was a little windy. ... There may have been some spray blowing toward the lady's house, but I don't think it was traveling that far. … While I was spraying, the lady came from across the road and waited for me at the end of the field. I sprayed up to the end of the rows, and when I stopped, she asked me if I was Mr. Smith. I told her my name and that Jim was in one of the other fields. I really wasn't sure where Jim was at the time. After that, the lady left and I continued spraying. ... I was wearing a coat, glasses, leather gloves, leather boots and denim jeans."
Simmons learned that this was Brad Doe's first time spraying. Mr. Doe had watched Mr. Smith spray on numerous occasions during the last few years. He had no experience with pesticide mixing, loading or application. Mr. Doe did not have a pesticide applicator license or the handler training required under the Worker Protection Standards. What little pesticide safety training he had came from a Red Cross first aid course. Mr. Doe had not read the Monitor® 4 label, but was confident Mr. Smith knew the correct rates, timing and safety procedures.
Simmons continued to ask Mr. Doe detailed questions about the equipment and the application. Mr. Doe's response to his question about the spray pressure caught Simmons' attention. "You were spraying at 275 PSI?" Simmons asked. "Yes, that's the pressure Jim told me to spray at," Mr. Doe said. "How do you know you were spraying at 275 PSI?" Simmons asked.
The question seemed unreasonable, as if it would insult Mr. Doe's intelligence, but it had to be asked. "I watched the pressure gauge." Mr. Doe said. "Can you show me the pressure gauge and where the needle was reading while you were spraying?" Simmons asked. They walked to the back of the tractor. Mr. Doe pointed to the pressure gauge and the mark between 250 and 300. As they continued to the rear of the spray rig and examined the boom, Simmons could see the nozzles were the type that produced a cone pattern of spray rather than a fan pattern.
Generally, cone-type nozzles can be used at higher pressures than fan-pattern nozzles. Even so, 275 PSI is an exceedingly high pressure.
Once he returned to his office, Simmons planned to check the manufacturer's charts and discuss the nozzle core plate and orifice size with the manufacturer. When Simmons questioned Mr. Doe about personal protective equipment, Mr. Doe showed Simmons a respirator in a grocery-style plastic bag draped over the tractor fender. The plastic bag was not sealed and there was extensive dust and other residue on the outside of the bag. When Mr. Doe removed the respirator from the bag, it was clearly soiled and covered with residues. Potentially, wearing such a respirator can be worse than wearing no respirator at all. Not only would one's face be in direct contact with pesticide residues, the respirator seals against the face so that an operator likely would breathe and ingest residues from the inside of the respirator. Simmons completed his interview with Mr. Doe, letting him know he might return with further questions. He thanked the operator for his time, and went on to interview Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith told Simmons he was the certified applicator responsible for the application to the potato field. The farmer mixed and loaded the tank of Monitor® 4 by pouring the product directly from a 2½-gallon jug into the tank, already partly filled with water. Using the contents markers on the jug, Mr. Smith determined the right amount of product to pour into the tank.
Mr. Smith responded to Simmons' line of questioning, describing his actions in the following way: "I don't have any chemical-resistant boots, but I have rubber gloves, goggles and a chemical resistant suit. ... I have a respirator available in case I need it when I do the mixing. ... I only use the respirator and suit on days that are windy. … No, I wasn't wearing any of those items when I mixed the tank of Monitor® 4. There's a respirator on the tractor, but I don't make the operator use it. ... You really wouldn't use one unless it's windy. … N o, there's not a thermometer or wind gauge available to the operator. I have a thermometer back at the shop. ...
Our normal shutdown point for an application is when it's just too windy to spray. When I helped Brad get started spraying, the wind was calm, but it picked up during the application. I had to leave after I got Brad started. I was still on the farm, but not where he could reach me."
Simmons interrupted Mr. Smith and asked why he didn't stop the pesticide application when the wind picked up. "It was not at a level where I would have stopped the spraying. I would guess that it was about 5 mph or less. … Yes, I've read the Monitor label. It's been a few months, but I'm generally familiar with the instructions. I've been using it for over 10 years. You get used to using the same product year after year. You just know what's safe and what's not without reading the label."
Whether Mr. Smith actually read the label or simply ignored the instructions, strong evidence existed to suggest the farmer failed to comply with the pesticide's application requirements.
While he was at Mr. Smith's farm, Simmons took copious interview notes and several photos of the spray equipment. Now back in the office, he started making a thorough review of the label. Even before the investigation, Simmons generally was familiar with the Monitor® 4 label. He knew the chemical was acutely toxic and there likely were drift prohibitions and extensive requirements for personal protective equipment. This knowledge had helped him formulate a lot of his interview questions. Now he verified the specific label statements and requirements (see figure 1).
 |
 |
| Residue-covered respirator from bag on tractor | Respirator in grocery-style plastic bag draped over tractor fender |
Simmons also reviewed the flow charts that rated Mr. Smith's nozzles up to 300 PSI. The manufacturer confirmed that at 275 PSI, the nozzle assembly would produce a very high percentage of fine and very fine droplets, with well in excess of 50 percent of the spray pattern consisting of droplets below 200 microns in diameter. Droplets below 200 microns in diameter are highly prone to drift.
It was a few weeks before the sample analysis came back from the lab. By that time, Mr. Smith had submitted the pesticide application record requested by Simmons, which he had transcribed from a pocket notebook. He submitted the "record" of the Monitor® 4 application to Simmons on a piece of notebook paper, instead of the WSDA-approved form requested by Simmons. The record read in its entirety: Aug. 20 1 pt monitor/a
The sample analysis report from the lab showed the following:
• No residues on clothing worn by Mrs. Jones
• Swab samples from the house exterior contained 13 micrograms of methamidaphos, the active ingredient in Monitor® 4
• Vegetation sample contained 2.3 parts per million methamidaphos. Sample came from Mrs. Jones' front yard, where she first saw Mr. Doe spraying
• Other samples also tested positive for methamidaphos
In the end, the sample analysis results indicated Monitor® 4 drifted to the area where Mrs. Jones was standing.
Simmons had all of the information to complete his investigation, and now composed a comprehensive case report of his findings. Weather data, investigator observations, sample analysis results and key testimony all painted a pretty clear picture. Although the department had the authority to issue a fine to Brad Doe, it decided instead to issue the operator a Notice of Correction, hoping this would be the last time he would endanger himself or others by applying pesticides in a negligent manner.
Jim Smith, the farmer and licensed private applicator, was responsible for the direct supervision of Mr. Doe as he applied the acutely toxic restricted-use pesticide. The department holds licensees to a higher standard and a higher degree of accountability, especially when individuals have been exposed to a pesticide. The department sent Mr. Smith a Notice of Intent to issue a civil penalty and suspend his license. The Notice of Intent is the legal notice that informed Mr. Smith of the department's intended actions and his rights to an administrative hearing in relation to that action.
The chart shows the charges and applicable penalties assessed against the fictitious Mr. Smith. Total penalty was $3,050 and a 48-day license suspension. In the actual case this story was based upon, another pesticide was mixed with the Monitor® 4, so three additional label violations were charged against the farmer. The total penalty in the actual case came to $4,700 and a 75-day license suspension.
| DANGER POISONDANGER: Do not inhale. Do not get on skin. Do not take internally. Fatal if swallowed. May be fatal if inhaled or absorbed through skin. Do not breathe vapor or spray mist. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. …DIRECTIONS FOR USEIt is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application …Do not apply within … 100 feet by ground of an unprotected person(s) …This product must be … used in a dry-coupling mixing/loading system …Personal Protective Equipment:Applicators and Other Handlers Must Wear: coveralls over short-sleeved shirt and short pants; chemical- resistant gloves, such as barrier laminate or butyl rubber or nitrile rubber or neoprene rubber or polyvinylchloride (PVC) or viton; chemical-resistant footwear plus socks, protective eyewear, chemical-resistantheadgear for overhead exposure, chemical-resistant apron when … mixing or loading, a respirator ..." |
|
Figure 1. Excerpt from Monitor® 4 label |
Department Actions Against ViolatorsThe "burden of proof' for administrative law is a "preponderance of evidence." Put amother way, evidence must show "it is mare likely than not" that the violation occurred. In contrast, criminal law requires a greater burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Once WSIDA has weighed the evidence and determined sufficient grounds for penalty, the various factors, elements and circumstances are plugged into a penalty matrix (WAC 16-228-1130) "for the fair, uniform determination of penalty . . ." In Jim Smith's case the department took the following action: |
||
| No. | Violation | Penalty |
| 1 | Drift and human
exposure: • Label violation • Operated in a faulty, careless or negligent manner • Applied in a manner causing injury to people • Failed to provide direct supervision |
$550 fine plus 9 day license suspension |
| 2 | Applied within 30 feet of the
complainant: • Label violation • Applied in a manner endangering people • Failed to provide direct supervision |
$550 fine plus 9 day license suspension |
| 3 | No PPE or dry coupling system for
mixing/loading: • Label violation • Operated in a faulty, careless or negligent manner • Applied in a manner endangering people |
$550 fine plus 9 day license suspension |
| 4 | No PPE while applying: • Label violation • Operated in a faulty, careless or negligent manner • Applied in a manner endangering people • Failed to provide direct supervision |
$550 fine plus 9 day license suspension |
| 5 | No WPS training to employee: • Worker Protection Standard |
$550 fine plus 9 day license suspension |
| 6 | Inadequate Pesticide Application
Records: • Missing information required by WAC 16-228-1320 • Not submitted on department form as requested |
$300 fine plus 3 day license suspension |
This fact sheet will help you understand how to comply with Worker Protection Standard requirements for ensuring your employees have access to water for eye flushing. The questions answered here were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by people seeking clarification on this part of the regulation.
The WPS requires the agricultural employer to assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately available to each worker performing early-entry activities for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. Similarly, the WPS requires the handler employer to assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately available to each handler who is performing tasks for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear.
In both sections of the WPS addressing availability of eye flush water, the agency requires that emergency eye flush water be carried by the handler or early-entry worker, or be on the vehicle (or aircraft) that the handler or early-entry worker is using, or be otherwise immediately accessible. [40 CFR §§ 170.150(b)(4) and 170.250(d)].
The WPS How to Comply manual states that emergency eye flush water may be at the decontamination site if the decontamination site is immediately accessible. Because the WPS specifies that eyewash water must be carried by the handler or early-entry worker, or must be on the vehicle or aircraft that the handler or early-entry worker is using, the eyewash water must be close and accessible to the worker or handler at all times. In addition, because concentrations and causticity of agricultural chemicals vary so greatly (and therefore the duration of exposure necessary for ocular damage to occur is difficult to determine uniformly), emergency eyewash water must be available immediately. If the emergency eyewash water is not being carried by a person, it must be situated at such a distance that a person could get to it within very few seconds.
If emergency eye flush water must be close, accessible and situated so a person could get to it within very few seconds, what are some examples of places that it may be located/stored so the above criteria are met?
In addition to the examples listed above, the following might be additional examples of "immediately available":
• Running water, a commercial eye flush dispenser or decontamination water in a carboy at a mix/load, storage, equipment cleaning or repairing, or other stationary handling (or early-entry) site for handlers or early-entry workers engaged in such activities at the site
• Running water or commercial eye flush dispensers located at
frequent intervals and easily accessed by
the handlers/early-entry workers in a bench-type nursery or
greenhouse site
• Water meeting the WPS standard for decontamination water that is in a nurse tank or other supply tank on (or being dragged by) the vehicle a handler or early-entry worker is operating
What are some examples of unacceptable locations in which to store emergency eye flush water (e.g., water would not be immediately available)?
Examples of situations where emergency eye flush water would not be immediately accessible are:
• Water on a vehicle but in a locked compartment
• Water for which difficult or time-consuming steps must be taken to access, such as having to uncouple or connect a nurse tank hose, having to unlock a compartment holding the eye flush dispenser or having to unlock a restroom
• Water located across a stream or commercial road
Does the eye flush water requirement in the WPS need to be in 1-pint containers only? Can a single, large container suffice if the contents equal or exceed 1 pint per worker?
A single, large container would suffice if it were immediately accessible to each worker or handler who requires it. [40 CFR § 170.150]
To get more facts about compliance, contact the Ag Center by phone, fax or mail. Call the toll-free number to ask compliance questions or order publications. At the Ag Center's Web site you can explore compliance information and order or download publications. For a complete publication list, request document 10001, "Ag Center Publications."
The Ag Center welcomes comments on this document and its other services.
National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center
901 5th St. N.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Toll-free: (888) 663-2155
Internet: www.epa.gov/agriculture
Need help with pesticide certification or general pesticide use issues?
Contact:
NDSU Pesticide Training and
Certification Program
Box 5051, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
Tel: (701) 231-7180
Fax: (701) 231-5907
E-mail: pesticid@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Internet: www.ndsupesticide.org
This newsletter may be copied for noncommercial, educational purposes in its entirety with no changes. Requests to use any portion of the document (including text, graphics or photos) should be sent to NDSU.permission@ndsu.edu. Include exactly what is requested for use and how it will be used.
County Commissions, North Dakota State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Duane Hauck, Director, Fargo, North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, age, veteran's status or sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity institution. This publication will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities upon request, (701) 231-7881.